Congestion toll in Boston?

Well, our governor has sleepovers at the White House; maybe if he asked pretty please, the president would let them put tolls on 93.
 
Toll all the roads, eliminate the gas tax, lower the drinking age to 18, give DC the finger.

I have my campaign promises all lined up.
 
dshoost88 said:
Uhh, actually you can.
Click to expand...

This involves conversion of HOV lanes and the addition of extra lanes. It does not involve wholesale conversion of an interstate highway.

Commuting Boston Student said:
Revenue maximization, my friend.

Once the pilot program turns out to be a resounding success, the odds in favor of more pilot slots being created go from slim and none to pretty good.
Click to expand...

You're talking in terms of abstractions. Look at concrete, real-world veto points. In order for an expansion to happen, Congress would need to authorize it. Have you looked at the House of Representatives lately?
 
omaja said:
^ Adding an entirely new toll facility is not the same as tolling existing routes. This would only work if they added lanes to 93, for example.
Click to expand...

No lanes were added in Miami.
 
BostonUrbEx said:
Toll all the roads, eliminate the gas tax, lower the drinking age to 18, give DC the finger.

I have my campaign promises all lined up.
Click to expand...

Or:
Eliminate all the tolls, increase gas tax, lower drinking age to 18, give DC the finger.
 
Semass said:
Or:
Eliminate all the tolls, increase gas tax, lower drinking age to 18, give DC the finger.
Click to expand...

I'm not in favor of subsidizing the operation of cars which are already cheaper to operate. Tolling is how the market would keep sprawl in check. Gas tax is absurd. You're essentially billing people with hybrids and electrics less when they may very well be driving just as far, or further, and putting just as much wear on the road.
 
The purpose of a gas tax under such a circumstance would be to alleviate the negative externalities of gasoline production and combustion. It could also be encompassed under a carbon tax, if that were ever to appear.
 
Matthew said:
The purpose of a gas tax under such a circumstance would be to alleviate the negative externalities of gasoline production and combustion. It could also be encompassed under a carbon tax, if that were ever to appear.
Click to expand...

Exactly. You accomplish the dual goals of funding transportation and helping the environment, but in an economically efficient way that doesn't regulate certain types of vehicles out of existence with the cudgel of CAFE standards. I get to keep my ~15 mpg muscle car, and I'll gladly pay more to do so. At the same time lots of people will give theirs up, and the envornment will benefit. Win-win.
 
jass said:
No lanes were added in Miami.
Click to expand...

Yes, there were; they added a lane in each direction, restriped the roadway and designated the existing HOV lanes as the 'express lanes'.
 
omaja said:
Yes, there were; they added a lane in each direction, restriped the roadway and designated the existing HOV lanes as the 'express lanes'.
Click to expand...

They took away an existing free HOV lane , and destroyed the spirit of carpooling. So they took what was free and made it paid.

"but HOVs can go for free!"

BS. Its like sending in a letter to mcdonalds to get a free monopoly play piece.


Then they did narrow lanes to restrip a new lane. Road wasnt widened though. No new construction.
 
'Destroying the spirit of carpooling'? Give me a break. People who actually carpool still get to use the express lanes free of charge. All you do is send in a carpool registration. Not too terribly difficult.

Net-net, though, they added a lane in each direction. Doing so meant no loss of general purpose lanes, which is the point. We don't have dedicated HOV lanes on 93 to convert to HOT so it would take a legislative miracle or new construction to make it happen in MA.
 
omaja said:
'Destroying the spirit of carpooling'? Give me a break. People who actually carpool still get to use the express lanes free of charge. All you do is send in a carpool registration. Not too terribly difficult.

Net-net, though, they added a lane in each direction. Doing so meant no loss of general purpose lanes, which is the point. We don't have dedicated HOV lanes on 93 to convert to HOT so it would take a legislative miracle or new construction to make it happen in MA.
Click to expand...

Dan Winslow proposed converting the "zipper lane" south of Boston to an HOT lane.
 
massmotorist said:
I get to keep my ~15 mpg muscle car, and I'll gladly pay more to do so. At the same time lots of people will give theirs up, and the envornment will benefit. Win-win.
Click to expand...

The flip side of that coin is that not everyone getting bad mileage is getting bad mileage because they can afford it and don't care. Increasing the gas tax is regressive for the landscaper driving a 20 year old pickup because that's all he can afford.
Not saying we shouldn't increase the gas tax. Just saying the "win-win" is not so clear cut.
 
Better to deal with that through income tax credits or some similar mechanism -- keeping the gas tax or carbon tax simple. Regardless of what vehicle is being used, or who is using it, the effect of consumption of a gallon of gasoline is basically the same. That's why an excise tax makes a lot of sense. Regressive or progressive doesn't enter into it.

Offering a kind of blunt discount on the gas tax by letting its value lapse through inflation is very ad-hoc and silly.
 
If you had to designate a CBD for Boston, where you would you draw the line?

Is it as easy as saying everything inside of:

Mem Drive & Charles River (as northern and northeast boundary)
Mass Ave (as western boundary)
Mass Pike (as southern boundary)

with tolls for any crossing "inbound" of these and "upon exit from I-93" into the core

Here, for reference, is NYC's new plan.

 
Upthread, Shepard drew it this way (below). I would not include Charlestown or the South End in the CBD. To me, these are more like the Upper East and Upper West sides...not CBD "commuter" destinations.

I'd also not initially put Longwood in just because, for now, they don't have great transit that's going "underused" that we could quickly densify with any congestion charge revenues.

If Cambridge "wants in" I'd let them put Kendall "in" and perhaps North Point (but, again, only after the GLX gives people clear, non-car alternatives...it just doesn't work to whack cars until you've given folks great transit alternatives. The point of Manhattan is that it has awesome transit and people still gunk it up with their autos). If MIT opted in, that'd be OK (but so'd their opting out and making do with traditional TDM)

Shepard said:
Here's a maximalist view of what a charge zone would look like - pretty much how I define the CBD.
czonef.jpg
Click to expand...

I might accept more of the Back Bay "bowtie" by doing a bump-out of my "Pike" boundary to put most of Huntington Ave inside the CBD.
 
Mem Drive & Charles River (as northern and northeast boundary)
Mass Ave (as western boundary)
Mass Pike (as southern boundary)
Click to expand...

I think your suggested boundaries are pretty damn good. I would love to find a way to include secondary employment centers like LMA and Kendall, but the physical and psychological boundaries of the river and the Pike really help with implementation. I would not try to include Memorial.

There are only about a dozen Pike crossings plus a handful of Mass Ave crossings in the BB plus the bridges and tunnels. That is a manageable scenario. I would want to see the Mass Ave bridge tolled as well so that the damn 1 bus would work better.

What is an appropriate toll? Two times the subway fare has a nice psychological effect, IMO.
 
I like Shepard's map as maybe a Phase II or something. Downtown and BB have excellent transit. South End, LMA and Kendall all need more. Take revenue from Phase I to finance transit upgrades in the next ring out. Once the transit is there, you can toll the cars.
 
I would start with a smaller, politically feasible area and low fee. Working incrementally proved extremely effective in London (with the Congestion Charge Zone), and I believe Boston would be well-served to mimic their system: albeit it in a toned-down, American way:

2qnbfq9.png


It would truly just be the central part of the business district to start. The area is bound by Tremont, Court, Congress, Purchase, Surface, Essex, and Boylston. This is the area most harmed by automobiles, with thin streets and heavy pedestrian activity, as well as the best transit access in the region.

The markers show the 16 points at which cars can enter the congestion zone, and subsequently be charged a fee:

1. Hamilton Pl
2. Bosworth St
3. School St
4. Court Sq
5. Devonshire St
6. Quaker Ln
7. Quaker Ln
8. Franklin St
9. Summer St
10. Lincoln St
11. Chauncy St
12. Washington St
13. Bumstead Ct
14. Head Pl
15. Head Pl
16. Avery St

Ideally, in a perfect world, the congestion charge would lead to a decrease in automobile use in this corridor, leading to the ability to further extend the DTX pedestrian zone.
 
I found a nice site for making pictures! ScribbleMaps, and so I scribbled one
01SH5rftvK.png


The thing is, congestion boundaries are usually drawn just inside some "ring road" Storrow might be that road. (or it might be Mem Drive).

You might worry that the ring would get crowded with "toll beaters", but there are so many people who give up their cars entirely that it isn't as bad as you'd think. (imagine if Storrow were outside the boundary)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top